UltimateMetal Seeks New Writers

[Eminor]

Yeah, but this is only true if the review has any level of "authenticity" -- and by that, I mean some text that reflects the listening experience of someone who TRULY knows the album inside out.

But yes, otherwise I agree -- like I said, a review is a set of pointers, a hint at what's on offer, but not a good conclusion of what depth the music carries.



See, this is my point. Even if you divided it equally, you're talking about 1 writer having to review 7 to 8 new promos per month. I mean, with all seriousness, how can anyone comprehend an album so quickly? Where's the integrity?

I'll take 1 review of an album you've owned for 5 years over 50 brand new promo reviews.

I hear what you're saying, and find some truth to it. However, I don't think it is related to integrity whatsoever. People understand that when they read a review of an album, book, movie, restaraunt, etc, that the opinion is based on a limited exposure. Not sure that that's even inappropriate, or less valid.

I listen to each album I review a minimum of 3 times (usually for ambient or painfully run of the mill stuff), but I listen to some albums a couple dozen albums before reviewing them. It takes me awhile to absorb the album, and even longer until my writing brain kicks into motion.

 

[JayKeeley]

However, I don't think it is related to integrity whatsoever. People understand that when they read a review of an album, book, movie, restaraunt, etc, that the opinion is based on a limited exposure. Not sure that that's even inappropriate, or less valid.

See, this is where the metal community differs to an audience interested in the latest hollywood blockbuster or new bar & grill opening. I honestly believe that metal fans would prefer to read the opinion of something based on in-depth exposure.

There is so much stuff being mass produced these days, we (as a community of fans) are missing a boat load worth of "diamonds in the rough" simply because we're distracted by this exhaustive obligation to churn through a sea of mediocrity.

Why not educate? Serious metal fans want to be scholars. Tell me about something I might have missed that came out in 1981 instead of what Metal Blade released last week.

I do admit though, I LOVE what Terrorizer does with it's "Special Articles" -- whether it be black metal, power metal, and now doom metal. Very educational and I'll happily spend money on printed journals for that kind of journalism.

I listen to each album I review a minimum of 3 times (usually for ambient or painfully run of the mill stuff), but I listen to some albums a couple dozen albums before reviewing them. It takes me awhile to absorb the album, and even longer until my writing brain kicks into motion.

Jeez, we ended up having to go back and re-write reviews or change scores simply because our opinions had changed over the course of a few months. Reviews for promos will always be total bunk opinions simply because the album hasn't yet been given the chance to stand the test of time.

The best albums take a while to absorb, might as well wait until you're ready before putting 'pen to paper'. It's not like we're going anywhere and neither does anyone care what the release date is.

I know exactly what we'll do differently when RC returns.

 

[Eminor]

To each his own. A site can't really do both things. Unless it's huge, that is. I'd really like to be able to get there-- I'd like to write about old albums. We talked about starting small, giving a monthly in depth review of albums that have at least a few years on them. It can't just turn into a set of essays on all your favorite albums though, that doesn't fly.

The other thing I'll say is that while every once in awhile I "take one for the team", I rarely get stuck reviewing a bunch of shit I don't want to. I have a lot of freedom that way, and it sounds like Ultimate Metal writers do too. The other point is that I've never once had any pressure to give albums good scores to placate labels. I dunno, the writing thing is what it is. Some good some bad. Most times I enjoy it and I've been exposed to lots of good music.

 

[Eminor]

Oh, and I tend to believe that the metal community, in general, is as focused on the "what's hot now" as most other scenes. The indie one is what I'm most familiar with. Bear in mind, that category has nothing to do with success. One of my favorite headlines from The Onion: "Riot at Yo La Tengo Concert, 37 Record Store Clerks Trampled to Death!"

 

[Russell]

Why spend the time writing a review for Metal Blade's latest crapola As I Lay Dying clone when you could have spent the same time writing a review for Eucharist's Velvet Creation? That is unless you're only writing to support the label sending out more free tax write off promos.

So people know whether it's good or not. It all boils down to the fact that a lot of people still use reviews to influence their downloading/purchasing. Someone has to review new stuff - good and bad - otherwise the only reviews we'd have are of classics which people are far more likely to buy on the basis of a recommendation from friends/contemporaries. Someone has to review the bad stuff to say it's bad. Yes, it's good to have reviews of classics, and that's something I'd like to do a lot more, but at the same time, people will always also be interested in new stuff.

What you say about not having time to form a true opinion is true to an extent, it all depends on how objectively you're trying to review something. If your reviews are just describing the music, giving early impressions, and suggesting what impact the music will have in the future, I don't see a problem. You can describe the style of music, approach, atmosphere and feel quite accuately after a week or two of listens, what you can't o is comment on the longevity of the music or the influence it will have, and most reviwers don't.

 

[Russell]

Having read a few more of your comments, I think this is basically a result of different approaches to reviews. When you review stuff, you review stuff you love, for yourself, more as a hobby, and if other people read it and take note - great! When a lot of modern zines do, they review a wide range of stuff so readers can see what they think is good, and what isn't. Neither approach is wrong, but they differ.

I'm more than happy to review crap if it will stop a lot of people wasting their money on it. The pros outway the cons IMO, as I discover new music, enjoy writing (whether the music is good or bad), and I get to help a lot of bands. More than half the promos I get for UM are demos from unsigned groups, and I really like the fact that I can help some of these people. But then, while I really enjoy reviewing, I don't think of it in the same light as a hobby, that's just my approach.

 

[unhinged]

I'm more than happy to review crap if it will stop a lot of people wasting their money on it. .

good point
when I send you a few I'll include my review of the last MOD album

 

[Demonspell]

I definitely agree that reviews for older classics are going to reflect the writer's true passions much more than a new release that arrived in the mailbox last week, but the reason why most review sites exist is to introduce people to new music, and that should always be the focus unless you're a specialist publication. It's also difficult to find original perspectives on classic albums (unless they're obscure) and there's more potential for a biased opinion...